As i mentioned before, i love reading the press gaggles and news breifings held by Scotty. Most of the time i am outraged by his lack of honesty and utter contempt for the intelligence of the American people, as he dispenses talking points and carefully parsed responses to a mostly acquiescent press pool.
But today was different. The WH press corps apparently grew some balls overnight and started asking some real questions about Karl Rove's role in the outing of a CIA agent. Well, it's about freakin' time. Here's some of the juicy bits from the WH transcript:
QUESTION: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this"?
QUESTION: Do you stand by that statement?
MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.
QUESTION: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk.
You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?
MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation.
QUESTION: You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?
MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.
QUESTION: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?
MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.
QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott...
Yeah, he's in a bad spot. Here's video. Watch him sweat, fret and squirm. It's lovely. He got caught lying from the podium and the press is pissed at him for it.
MCCLLELAN: The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium....
Q: Scott, if I could point out: Contradictory to that statement, on September 29th of 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one to have said that if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then, on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation, when the president made his comments that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you’ve suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, 'We’re not going to comment on an ongoing investigation'?
MCCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. And that’s something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow.
Billmon has a nice wrap up of past statements made by Snotty and the rest of the Rove defenders. You may compare recent statements above to what was said before here. Samples:
QUESTION: Wilson now believes that the person who did this was Karl Rove . . . Did Karl Rove tell that . . .
McCLELLAN: I haven't heard that. That's just totally ridiculous. But we've already addressed this issue. If I could find out who anonymous people were, I would. I just said, it's totally ridiculous.
QUESTION: But did Karl Rove do it?
McCLELLAN: I said, it's totally ridiculous.
Not so rediculous now, in light of the fact that the White House has a vendetta against Joe Wilson, whose report was true - that Iraq never sought enriched uranium from Niger. The evidence that supported that assertion turned out to be a fogery. That assertion appeared as the infamous 16 words in The 2003 State of the Union Address, where W was drumming up support to attack Iraq. See? It's all connected. The big picture is coming into focus. These folks are dirty rotten liars.
QUESTION: Scott, you have said that you, personally, went to Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliot Abrams to ask them if they were the leakers . . . Why did you do that, and can you describe the conversations you had with them?
McCLELLAN: They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt of that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.
QUESTION: So you're saying -- you're saying categorically those three individuals were not the leakers or did not authorize the leaks; is that what you're saying?
McCLELLAN: That's correct.
That's correct? Not so much.
It's all well and good that the press is starting to pay attention to this issue (this has been going on for TWO YEARS already!) and ask questions, but it doesn't mean that Snotty will give us real honest answers. The tap dance continues.
Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) writes a letter calling for hearings on the Hill. Give 'em hell, Henry! Put them under oath and roast them slowly. Just don't slather them in batter or mayonnaise.
Quote of the day from Rep. John Conyers (D-MI):
"Remember during the 2000 Presidential campaign when the Republican mantra was that President Bush was going to 'restore honesty and dignity to the White House'? How's that going?"